1169:, section 6. “The Scriptures teach that Christ on the Cross, in virtue of the dignity of His person, the voluntariness of His offering, and the greatness of His sufferings did make and present, on behalf of poor sinners, a sacrifice of infinite value. And that this sacrifice, by showing all worlds the terrible evil of the sin humanity had committed, and the importance of the law humanity had broken, did make it possible for the love and pity of God to flow out to humanity by forgiving all those who repent and return in confidence to Him, enabling Him to be just and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.”
549:
1397:. In this context, Calvinists argue that Arminianism falls into inconsistency in this matter of universal atonement. The Arminian belief, so it is said, leads inexorably to universal salvation because if Christ dies for a sinner, his or her sins are already punished; they are put on Christ. So for God to send a person for whom Christ died to hell would be unjust—it would be to punish the same sins twice. That is simply nonsense. A person can refuse to accept another’s vicarious payment of his or her punishment.
1244:, p. 806-807. God loves the human race. Although he has the right to punish it for its sin, it is not necessary or mandatory that he do so. He can forgive sin and absolve humans of guilt". He has chosen to in such a way that it manifests at once both his clemency and severity. God can forgive sin, but he also takes into consideration the interests of his moral government. 'It is possible for God to relax the law so that he need not exact a specific punishment or penalty for each violation.'
713:, the satisfaction view (and, by extension, the governmental and penal views) maintain the order of justice while interrupting the continuity of the divine work, while the Christus Victor view interrupts the order of justice while maintaining the continuity of the divine work. He also draws a distinction between Christus Victor, wherein the atonement is "from above", from the side of God, and other views, where the work is offered up from the side of man.
1256:. or classical Governmental Theory theologians the cross was substitutionary in that Jesus suffered what we deserve—although not “my” or “your” punishment. He suffered an equivalent punishment to our deserved punishment in order to reconcile God’s love with God’s justice and make it possible for God to forgive sins without setting aside his holiness and justice. In this way it is objective and not mere subjective as Reformed theologians have claimed.
48:
1094:: 'Generally, Edwards is acknowledged as the father of this theory, as developed and held in New England, without having held it personally. That is, it is recognized that this theory constitutes a logical development of his theological speculations, but that Edwards was too orthodox to pursue them to such heretical conclusions, although his disciples, being more consistent, generally did so.'
844:
1106:, p. ix. Governmental theory is called " Edwardean," partly from the fact that certain germs of it are found in the writings of the elder Edwards, still more in the writings of his bosom friend, Hopkins, but chiefly from the fact that its more prominent advocates have been the so-called "successors of Edwards," and among them the more noted, perhaps, is his son. Dr. Jonathan Edwards.
1118:, p. 332. "On one hand, the Finneyite atonement combined the dramatic presence of Christus Victor, the satisfaction theme of Anselm, the substitutionary elements of penal substitution, the rectoral framework of moral government, and the ethical focus of moral influence, all into one. On the other hand, Finney’s version resembled none of these historical theories of the atonement."
1373:, The Penal Satisfaction Theory. The Penal substitutionary theory leads of necessity, either to universalism on the one hand, or unconditional election on the other. Dr. Miley makes the charge that "such an atonement, by its very nature, cancels all punitive claims against the elect, and by immediate result forever frees them from all guilt as a liability.
1385:, p. 513. Wiley mistakenly believed that the penal substitutionary theory led to either universalism or unconditional election/limited atonement. Here Wiley is giving too much ground to a commercialistic understanding of penal substitution, causing him to draw the same false dilemma conclusions that many Calvinists draw.
1295:, The Governmental Theory. Grotius, however, insisted that his theory of satisfaction was far more than the acceptilatio of Roman jurisprudence; that it was of infinite value, though not the precise equivalent. Thus there was a relaxation of the claims of the law in one sense, though not in another.
700:
substitution holds that Christ endured the exact punishment, or the exact "worth" of punishment, that sin deserved; the satisfaction theory states that Christ made the satisfaction owed by humans to God due to sin through the merit of His propitiatory sacrifice. These three views all acknowledge that
692:
view, in that all three views see Christ as satisfying God's requirement for the punishment of sin. However, the governmental view disagrees with the other two in that it does not affirm that Christ endured the precise punishment that sin deserves or paid its sacrificial equivalent. Instead, Christ's
614:
element. A major presupposition is that a vicarious penal substitution is impossible. Miley states: "Nothing could be punished in Christ which was not transferred to Him, and in some real sense made His. Hence, if sin, with its demerit, could not be put upon Christ by imputation, no punishment which
626:
as a corporate entity. In other words, Christ did not make a one-to-one substitution, but a general substitution. In this view, Christ's substitution can also be considered to be infinite, so that God could apply the substitution to an arbitrary, not pre-determined number of individuals and to their
618:
Christ's sufferings are an equivalent of men's punishment: The sufferings of Christ are to be regarded, not as the exact equivalent of men's punishment, but only in the sense that the dignity of the divine government was as effectively upheld and vindicated, as it would have been if men had received
726:
theory, Christ's death served as a substitute for the sins of individuals directly. Then, it may be argued that God would be unjust to punish them even if they did not come to faith. More specifically, it may be argued that the penal substitutionary theory would lead of necessity, either to
359:. Christ's suffering and death served as a substitute for the punishment humans might have received. On this basis, God is able to extend forgiveness while maintaining divine order, having demonstrated the seriousness of sin and thus allowing his wrath to "pass over."
721:
According to the governmental theory, the scope of the substitution is unlimited. Individuals then partake of the atonement through faith. Under this view, therefore, people can fall out of the scope of atonement through loss of faith. According to the
705:
view, states that Christ died not to fulfill God's requirements or to meet His needs or demands, but to cleanse humanity, restore the Image of God in humankind, and defeat the power of death over humans from within.
565:
Remissibility of penalties: There is no sufficient reason why sin must be punished solely on the ground of its demerit. The forgiveness of the actual sinner, as a real remission of penalty at the time of his
1062:: it is plain that Edwards had no hesitation about putting his imprimatur upon the New Divinity doctrine of the atonement ; to the contrary, he pledged his own reputation on its appearance'.
1046:, The Governmental Theory. The theory was advocated by the New England theologians since the days of Jonathan Edwards, but to what extent, it has been difficult to determine
273:
388:(1617) , in which he utilized semantics drawn from his training in law and his general view of God as moral governor (ruler) of the universe. Grotius demonstrated that the
310:
could forgive humans without punishing them while still maintaining divine justice. In the modern era, it is more often taught in non-Calvinist
Protestant circles, though
392:
appeased God in the divine role as cosmic king and judge, and especially that God could not have simply overlooked sin as the
Socinians claimed.
266:
664:'s emphasis on how the holiness of God figures in the atonement. It incorporates emphasis on Christ's ransoming humans as in the classical
1654:
669:
471:
183:
172:
1697:
622:
Unlimited scope of the substitution: According to governmental theory, Christ's death applies not to individuals directly, but to the
259:
99:
31:
1078:: 'Edwards, by contrast, had maintained the traditional view that the death of Christ was necessary to take away God's anger at sin'.
807:
792:
351:
for the punishment humans deserve, but it did not consist of Christ's receiving the exact punishment due to sinful people. Instead,
872:
685:
649:
116:
1707:
459:
634:. Individuals then partake of the atonement through faith and can fall out of the scope of atonement through loss of faith.
408:
in 1636; and the first translation was made in 1692. Grotius' theological writings were published in four folio volumes at
1702:
867:
455:
1421:
540:
did not believe it, neither did Wesley nor some of his nineteenth-century followers. Nor do all contemporary
Arminians".
557:
592:, in the sense that they were intentionally endured for sinners under judicial condemnation, and for the sake of their
570:
and acceptance in the divine favor, is proof positive to the contrary. Thus, in this theory, punishment is unnecessary.
665:
66:
548:
882:
857:
673:
589:
389:
348:
1565:
892:
567:
467:
701:
God cannot freely forgive sins without any sort of punishment or satisfaction being exacted. By contrast, the
367:
The governmental theory of the atonement is also known as the "rectoral theory" or "moral government theory".
355:
publicly demonstrated his displeasure with sin through the suffering of his own sinless and obedient Son as a
1625:
862:
814:
458:(1703–1758). This view was possibly held by Edwards himself, although this is debated, and held by his son
732:
728:
513:
437:
249:
599:
Objective paradigm: Because Christ's atonement is substitutionary, the theory is based on an objective
1346:. "Christus victor avoids the splitting of the justice of God from the mercy of God as does Anselmian
1712:
573:
Substitutional provision: As penalties are remissible, having a special end in the interest of moral
448:
126:
1288:
1286:
849:
740:
607:
436:
library in 1733. Grotius' first work was translated into
English by F. H. Foster, and published at
220:
1692:
877:
723:
689:
653:
611:
486:
299:
135:
755:
The following verses are commonly cited as evidence: Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, Romans 3:24-26,
648:
Governmental theory can not incorporate into itself the main elements of two major theories: a
1667:
521:
517:
209:
1495:
A defence of the
Catholic faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ against Faustus Socinus
1472:
A defence of the
Catholic faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ against Faustus Socinus
17:
818:
631:
623:
537:
536:, it is incorrect to assert that all Arminians agree with this view because, as he states: "
311:
831:
of God, and substitutes for the chief aim of the atonement, that which is only subordinate.
1585:
887:
764:
702:
463:
429:
82:
710:
89:
668:. It incorporates the emphasis on God's love, which is the main point in the Abelardian
760:
533:
525:
506:
421:
331:
1626:"Rethinking Finney: The Two Sides of Charles Grandison Finney's Doctrine of Atonement"
1536:
1686:
1605:
1525:
1441:
Christus Victor: An
Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement
978:, Modern theories of the atonement, introduction. The Governmental or Rectoral Theory
736:
661:
502:
470:'s (1792–1875) theory of atonement is notably influenced by the governmental and the
417:
234:
122:
1480:
630:
Conditional substitution: The forgiveness of sin has a conditionality in its saving
1467:
788:
772:
768:
553:
444:
433:
356:
323:
656:. However it can incorporate different understandings promoted in the other major
47:
897:
756:
593:
529:
482:
381:
319:
315:
230:
189:
145:
739:. In particular, Roger Olson states that penal substitution is compatible with
839:
577:, they may give place to any substitutional measure equally securing that end.
574:
490:
327:
226:
72:
1646:
The Moral
Governmental Theory of Atonement: Re-envisioning Penal Substitution
443:
Variations of governmental theory of the atonement have been espoused in the
843:
825:
657:
581:
478:
452:
413:
347:
Governmental theory holds that Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful
141:
940:
938:
936:
934:
932:
930:
928:
926:
924:
922:
920:
918:
828:
600:
803:
802:
of God in much the same sense that penal substitution emphasizes the
409:
405:
1661:. Vol. 2. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press. pp. 217–270.
477:
The governmental theory of the atonement prospered in 19th century
322:
never spoke clearly of it. It is drawn primarily from the works of
1586:"A Neglected Theory of the Atonement? (The "Governmental Theory")"
799:
747:, a person can simply refuse or accept Christ vicarious payment.
744:
547:
512:
The governmental theory of the atonement is also espoused by some
489:
view. This view has been notably detailed by
Methodist theologian
425:
303:
791:, and therefore minifies the idea of a real satisfaction of the
1493:
615:
He suffered fell upon such demerit, or intrinsic evil of sin."
585:
352:
307:
1413:
The Extent of the
Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review
1590:
Roger E. Olson: My evangelical, Arminian theological musings
1570:
Roger E. Olson: My evangelical, Arminian theological musings
806:
of God. A true theory of the atonement must satisfy all the
1213:
1211:
1209:
1207:
1205:
1203:
1201:
1199:
580:
Substitution by atonement: The sufferings of Christ are an
693:
suffering was simply an alternative to that punishment.
787:
It does not attach sufficient importance to the idea of
1617:
A Multi-Intentioned View of the Extent of the Atonement
1138:
1136:
306:. It teaches that Christ suffered for humanity so that
1655:"XXIII. The Atonement: Its Biblical Basis and History"
998:
996:
959:
957:
955:
953:
424:(1615–1691). Grotius' writings were also published at
416:
in 1679. The Grotian theory was adopted in England by
1303:
1301:
1487:. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City.
1015:
1013:
1011:
481:, although John Wesley did not hold to it himself.
606:Substitution in suffering: The substitution is in
386:Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfactione Christi
302:concerning the meaning and effect of the death of
735:. This argument has been considered by some as a
380:The governmental theory arose in opposition to
1610:. Boston: Congregational Board of Publication.
1515:Noll, Mark A (2001). "New England Theology".
1461:(3rd ed.). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
743:, because through non-arbitrary basis of the
684:The governmental view is very similar to the
267:
8:
1648:. Downers Grove: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
1541:. Vol. 2. New York: Eaton & Mains.
1422:"The Governmental Theory of the Atonement"
274:
260:
26:
1331:
1619:. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
1443:. Translated by Herber, A. G. Macmillan.
1265:
1241:
1229:
783:Here are some objections to the theory:
1481:"The Governmental Theory: An Expansion"
1031:
914:
242:
202:
54:
38:
1557:Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
1307:
1190:
1055:
1019:
654:penal substitution theory of atonement
1394:
1382:
1370:
1358:
1343:
1319:
1292:
1277:
1253:
1217:
1178:
1166:
1154:
1142:
1043:
1002:
975:
963:
944:
751:Scriptures commonly cited as evidence
7:
1668:"John Wesley's Use of the Atonement"
1559:. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
1452:. Toronto: Territorial Headquarters.
1127:
1115:
1103:
1071:
987:
288:governmental theory of the atonement
1550:. Ridgewood, NJ: Zephyr Publishing.
1450:The doctrines of the Salvation Army
1087:
670:moral influence theory of atonement
528:. If it is traditionally taught in
1517:Evangelical Dictionary of Theology
660:theories. It incorporates notably
447:school of thought (a stage of the
25:
384:. Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) wrote
873:Atonement (moral influence view)
842:
650:satisfaction theory of atonement
214:(Scholastic / Reformed)
46:
532:circles, however, according to
501:. It was also strongly held by
1566:"What's Wrong with Calvinism?"
1530:. New York: Eaton & Mains.
1415:. Nashville: B&H Academic.
817:that utility is the ground of
639:Comparison with other theories
460:Jonathan Edwards (the younger)
326:and later theologians such as
1:
1666:Wood, Darren Cushman (2007).
1457:Erickson, Millard J. (2012).
868:Atonement (satisfaction view)
420:(1675–1729) and partially by
400:The original editions of the
18:Atonement (governmental view)
1510:. Wesleyan University Press.
1501:. Andover, MA: W. F. Draper.
1485:A Wesleyan Holiness Theology
1474:. Andover, MA: W. F. Draper.
1426:American Presbyterian Church
558:Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt
1546:Romanides, John S. (1998).
1479:Grider, J. Kenneth (1994).
824:It practically ignores the
759:- 21, 1 Corinthians 15:28,
1729:
1644:Todd, Obbie Tyler (2021).
1624:Todd, Obbie Tyler (2020).
1519:. Toronto: Baker Academic.
947:, The Governmental Theory.
666:ransom theory of atonement
451:) by the followers of the
338:Definition and terminology
1698:Atonement in Christianity
1604:Park, Edwards A. (1859).
1466:Foster, Frank H. (1889).
883:Substitutionary atonement
858:Atonement in Christianity
813:It is built upon a false
763:, Philippians 1:29 - 30,
676:aspect of the atonement.
1653:Wiley, H. Orton (1940).
1615:Shultz, Gary L. (2014).
1584:Olson, Roger E. (2017).
1564:Olson, Roger E. (2013).
1555:Olson, Roger E. (2009).
1506:Guelzo, Allen C (1989).
893:Justification (theology)
619:the deserved punishment.
524:, R. Larry Shelton, and
468:Charles Grandison Finney
1527:The Atonement in Christ
1448:Booth, William (1892).
1439:Aulén, Gustav (1969) .
863:Atonement (ransom view)
815:philosophical principle
680:Nature of the atonement
296:moral government theory
140:(Scholastic /
1492:Grotius, Hugo (1889).
733:unconditional election
717:Scope of the atonement
561:
514:Church of the Nazarene
428:in 1732. They were in
250:Christian universalism
1708:Christian terminology
1411:Allen, David (2016).
767:, 1 Timothy 2:5 - 6,
551:
516:theologians, such as
1703:Evangelical theology
1535:Miley, John (1892).
1524:Miley, John (1879).
904:Notes and references
731:on the one hand, or
485:clearly held to the
449:New England theology
432:library in 1723 and
1538:Systematic theology
1508:Edwards on the Will
850:Christianity portal
741:unlimited atonement
499:Systematic Theology
495:Atonement in Christ
493:(1813–1895) in his
298:) is a doctrine in
290:(also known as the
165:Subjective paradigm
1672:The Asbury Journal
1659:Christian theology
1459:Christian Theology
1268:, p. 808-809.
1220:, p. 155-156.
878:Penal substitution
798:It emphasizes the
724:penal substitution
690:penal substitution
672:. It includes the
562:
487:penal substitution
300:Christian theology
136:Penal substitution
109:Objective paradigm
1548:The Ancestral Sin
808:divine attributes
793:divine attributes
522:Henry Orton Wiley
518:J. Kenneth Grider
404:was reprinted at
284:
283:
16:(Redirected from
1720:
1679:
1662:
1649:
1640:
1630:
1620:
1611:
1600:
1598:
1597:
1580:
1578:
1577:
1560:
1551:
1542:
1531:
1520:
1511:
1502:
1500:
1488:
1475:
1462:
1453:
1444:
1435:
1433:
1432:
1416:
1398:
1392:
1386:
1380:
1374:
1368:
1362:
1356:
1350:
1341:
1335:
1329:
1323:
1317:
1311:
1305:
1296:
1290:
1281:
1275:
1269:
1263:
1257:
1251:
1245:
1239:
1233:
1227:
1221:
1215:
1194:
1188:
1182:
1176:
1170:
1164:
1158:
1152:
1146:
1140:
1131:
1125:
1119:
1113:
1107:
1101:
1095:
1085:
1079:
1069:
1063:
1053:
1047:
1041:
1035:
1029:
1023:
1017:
1006:
1000:
991:
985:
979:
973:
967:
961:
948:
942:
852:
847:
846:
819:moral obligation
775:, Isaiah 42:21.
709:In the words of
456:Jonathan Edwards
276:
269:
262:
238:
215:
193:
178:
161:
149:
130:
105:
93:
76:
59:Classic paradigm
50:
27:
21:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1683:
1682:
1665:
1652:
1643:
1628:
1623:
1614:
1603:
1595:
1593:
1583:
1575:
1573:
1563:
1554:
1545:
1534:
1523:
1514:
1505:
1498:
1491:
1478:
1465:
1456:
1447:
1438:
1430:
1428:
1419:
1410:
1407:
1402:
1401:
1393:
1389:
1381:
1377:
1369:
1365:
1357:
1353:
1342:
1338:
1330:
1326:
1318:
1314:
1306:
1299:
1291:
1284:
1276:
1272:
1264:
1260:
1252:
1248:
1240:
1236:
1228:
1224:
1216:
1197:
1189:
1185:
1177:
1173:
1165:
1161:
1153:
1149:
1141:
1134:
1126:
1122:
1114:
1110:
1102:
1098:
1086:
1082:
1070:
1066:
1058:, p. 135.
1054:
1050:
1042:
1038:
1030:
1026:
1018:
1009:
1001:
994:
986:
982:
974:
970:
962:
951:
943:
916:
911:
906:
888:Christus Victor
848:
841:
838:
781:
765:Colossians 1:24
753:
719:
703:Christus Victor
682:
674:substitutionary
646:
644:General aspects
641:
546:
544:Characteristics
472:moral influence
430:Harvard College
398:
378:
373:
365:
345:
340:
292:rectoral theory
280:
244:
224:
223:
213:
212:
204:
198:
187:
186:
176:
175:
173:Moral influence
159:
158:
139:
138:
120:
119:
103:
102:
87:
86:
83:Christus Victor
70:
69:
56:
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1726:
1724:
1716:
1715:
1710:
1705:
1700:
1695:
1685:
1684:
1681:
1680:
1663:
1650:
1641:
1621:
1612:
1601:
1581:
1561:
1552:
1543:
1532:
1521:
1512:
1503:
1489:
1476:
1463:
1454:
1445:
1436:
1417:
1406:
1403:
1400:
1399:
1387:
1375:
1363:
1351:
1336:
1332:Romanides 1998
1324:
1322:, p. 123.
1312:
1297:
1282:
1280:, p. 146.
1270:
1258:
1246:
1234:
1232:, p. 808.
1222:
1195:
1183:
1171:
1159:
1157:, p. 237.
1147:
1145:, p. 224.
1132:
1120:
1108:
1096:
1080:
1064:
1048:
1036:
1024:
1007:
1005:, p. 162.
992:
980:
968:
966:, p. 190.
949:
913:
912:
910:
907:
905:
902:
901:
900:
895:
890:
885:
880:
875:
870:
865:
860:
854:
853:
837:
834:
833:
832:
822:
811:
796:
780:
777:
761:Galatians 3:13
752:
749:
718:
715:
681:
678:
645:
642:
640:
637:
636:
635:
628:
620:
616:
604:
597:
578:
571:
545:
542:
526:H. Ray Dunning
507:Salvation Army
422:Richard Baxter
397:
394:
377:
374:
372:
369:
364:
361:
344:
341:
339:
336:
332:H. Orton Wiley
282:
281:
279:
278:
271:
264:
256:
253:
252:
246:
245:
240:
239:
217:
216:
206:
205:
200:
199:
195:
194:
180:
179:
169:
168:
167:
166:
151:
150:
132:
131:
113:
112:
111:
110:
100:Recapitulation
95:
94:
78:
77:
63:
62:
61:
60:
52:
51:
43:
42:
36:
35:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1725:
1714:
1711:
1709:
1706:
1704:
1701:
1699:
1696:
1694:
1691:
1690:
1688:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1651:
1647:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1627:
1622:
1618:
1613:
1609:
1608:
1607:The Atonement
1602:
1591:
1587:
1582:
1571:
1567:
1562:
1558:
1553:
1549:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1533:
1529:
1528:
1522:
1518:
1513:
1509:
1504:
1497:
1496:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1464:
1460:
1455:
1451:
1446:
1442:
1437:
1427:
1423:
1418:
1414:
1409:
1408:
1404:
1396:
1391:
1388:
1384:
1379:
1376:
1372:
1367:
1364:
1360:
1355:
1352:
1349:atonement..."
1348:
1345:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1325:
1321:
1316:
1313:
1309:
1304:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1289:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1274:
1271:
1267:
1266:Erickson 2012
1262:
1259:
1255:
1250:
1247:
1243:
1242:Erickson 2012
1238:
1235:
1231:
1230:Erickson 2012
1226:
1223:
1219:
1214:
1212:
1210:
1208:
1206:
1204:
1202:
1200:
1196:
1193:, p. 50.
1192:
1187:
1184:
1180:
1175:
1172:
1168:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1139:
1137:
1133:
1130:, p. 67.
1129:
1124:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1049:
1045:
1040:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1016:
1014:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
997:
993:
989:
984:
981:
977:
972:
969:
965:
960:
958:
956:
954:
950:
946:
941:
939:
937:
935:
933:
931:
929:
927:
925:
923:
921:
919:
915:
908:
903:
899:
896:
894:
891:
889:
886:
884:
881:
879:
876:
874:
871:
869:
866:
864:
861:
859:
856:
855:
851:
845:
840:
835:
830:
827:
823:
820:
816:
812:
809:
805:
801:
797:
794:
790:
786:
785:
784:
778:
776:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
750:
748:
746:
742:
738:
737:false dilemma
734:
730:
725:
716:
714:
712:
707:
704:
699:
696:In contrast,
694:
691:
688:view and the
687:
679:
677:
675:
671:
667:
663:
662:Peter Forsyth
659:
655:
651:
643:
638:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
602:
598:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
576:
572:
569:
568:justification
564:
563:
559:
555:
550:
543:
541:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
510:
508:
504:
503:William Booth
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
475:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
454:
450:
446:
441:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:Samuel Clarke
415:
411:
407:
403:
395:
393:
391:
387:
383:
375:
370:
368:
362:
360:
358:
354:
350:
342:
337:
335:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
277:
272:
270:
265:
263:
258:
257:
255:
254:
251:
248:
247:
241:
236:
235:Protestantism
232:
228:
222:
219:
218:
211:
208:
207:
201:
197:
196:
191:
185:
184:Moral example
182:
181:
174:
171:
170:
164:
163:
162:
157:
153:
152:
147:
143:
137:
134:
133:
128:
124:
118:
115:
114:
108:
107:
106:
101:
97:
96:
91:
85:
84:
80:
79:
74:
68:
65:
64:
58:
57:
53:
49:
45:
44:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1675:
1671:
1658:
1645:
1639:(2): 332–43.
1636:
1632:
1616:
1606:
1594:. Retrieved
1589:
1574:. Retrieved
1569:
1556:
1547:
1537:
1526:
1516:
1507:
1494:
1484:
1471:
1458:
1449:
1440:
1429:. Retrieved
1425:
1420:APC (2020).
1412:
1390:
1378:
1366:
1354:
1347:
1339:
1327:
1315:
1273:
1261:
1249:
1237:
1225:
1186:
1174:
1162:
1150:
1123:
1111:
1099:
1091:
1083:
1075:
1067:
1059:
1051:
1039:
1032:Grotius 1889
1027:
990:, p. 1.
983:
971:
789:propitiation
782:
773:Hebrews 9:22
769:Hebrews 9:15
754:
729:universalism
720:
711:Gustaf Aulen
708:
697:
695:
686:satisfaction
683:
647:
610:without the
590:substitution
554:Hugo Grotius
552:Portrait of
511:
498:
494:
476:
445:New Divinity
442:
434:Yale College
401:
399:
396:Developments
385:
379:
366:
357:propitiation
346:
324:Hugo Grotius
318:, and other
304:Jesus Christ
295:
291:
287:
285:
233: /
229: /
156:Governmental
155:
154:
144: /
125: /
117:Satisfaction
98:
90:20th century
81:
41:Christianity
39:Atonement in
1713:Arminianism
1678:(2): 55–70.
1361:, .
1308:Grider 1994
1191:Shultz 2014
1181:, .
1092:Middle view
1056:Guelzo 1989
1020:Foster 1889
898:Soteriology
757:Romans 5:12
594:forgiveness
534:Roger Olson
483:John Wesley
382:Socinianism
363:Terminology
316:John Wesley
231:Arminianism
104:(Patristic)
1687:Categories
1596:2020-09-27
1576:2018-09-27
1431:2020-12-28
1395:Olson 2013
1383:Allen 2016
1371:Wiley 1940
1359:Aulén 1969
1344:Aulén 1969
1320:Miley 1879
1293:Wiley 1940
1278:Miley 1879
1254:Olson 2017
1218:Miley 1879
1179:Olson 2017
1167:Booth 1892
1155:Olson 2009
1143:Olson 2009
1044:Wiley 1940
1003:Miley 1892
976:Wiley 1940
964:Miley 1879
945:Wiley 1940
779:Objections
575:government
491:John Miley
474:theories.
349:substitute
343:Definition
328:John Miley
227:Amyraldism
160:(Arminian)
123:Scholastic
1693:Methodism
1592:. Patheos
1572:. Patheos
1468:"Preface"
1128:Wood 2007
1116:Todd 2020
1104:Park 1859
1072:Noll 2001
988:Todd 2021
909:Citations
658:atonement
608:suffering
582:atonement
479:Methodism
453:Calvinist
440:in 1889.
414:Amsterdam
390:atonement
320:Arminians
294:, or the
221:Unlimited
127:Anselmian
73:Patristic
1088:APC 2020
836:See also
829:holiness
826:immanent
601:paradigm
538:Arminius
530:Arminian
505:and the
497:and his
312:Arminius
243:See also
190:Socinian
146:Arminian
142:Reformed
55:Theories
32:a series
30:Part of
1405:Sources
1076:Against
804:justice
466:leader
464:Revival
438:Andover
402:Defence
376:Origins
371:History
210:Limited
177:(Mixed)
652:and a
624:Church
560:, 1631
410:London
406:Oxford
67:Ransom
1629:(PDF)
1499:(PDF)
800:mercy
745:faith
698:penal
632:grace
627:sins.
612:penal
426:Basel
203:Types
1633:JETS
584:for
412:and
330:and
286:The
1060:For
588:by
586:sin
556:by
353:God
308:God
1689::
1676:62
1674:.
1670:.
1657:.
1637:63
1635:.
1631:.
1588:.
1568:.
1483:.
1470:.
1424:.
1300:^
1285:^
1198:^
1135:^
1090:.
1074:.
1010:^
995:^
952:^
917:^
771:,
520:,
509:.
462:.
334:.
314:,
34:on
1599:.
1579:.
1434:.
1334:.
1310:.
1034:.
1022:.
821:.
810:.
795:.
603:.
596:.
275:e
268:t
261:v
237:)
225:(
192:)
188:(
148:)
129:)
121:(
92:)
88:(
75:)
71:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
